By Rodney Sheffer
All religious people place credibility in ideas that have neither evidentiary support nor empirical backing of any kind. For the most part these religious people believe propositions or ideas that fit into a preconceived frame of reference or world view in which they find comfort. The fact that these seriously flawed ideas or propositions are irrational or illogical, or deny and defy the known laws of the universe, are apparently irrelevant to the believers. These people can find comfort in convenient, but irrational falsehoods. When people can find comfort in falsehoods they are dangerous, especially when they are in a policy making position, e.g. legislators at any level.
Since religious faith is predicated on subjective speculation and unsupported conjecture which allows for unconstrained interpretation we can expect serious intellectual errors to follow. This has been the history of Western Civilization for millennia. More blood has been shed, and more people have died, as a consequence of these religiously inspired intellectual errors than for all other causes combined. When people continue to make the same religiously inspired errors while expecting different outcomes we are inclined to label such behavior as stupidity. While Europe has seen millions of people who have abandoned their allegiance to organized religion--especially Christianity--Americans still overwhelmingly continue to subscribe to religions that increasingly represent a retreat into the thinking of the tenth century of the Common Era. While the numbers of people in America who disavow any alliance with an organized religion is growing significantly, they are still a substantial minority.
Among religious believers, there is a huge spectrum of commitment to the dogma and doctrine of any sect. Some people are rigidly bound to a literalist/fundamentalist interpretation of their religion, and others are very flexible and open to various interpretations.
Those who are religiously conservative are those who cling hysterically to the status quo--they are frightened by change--they are not receptive to new knowledge. Ordered evolutionary change or alternative religious views so necessary in any modern culture are viewed as a threat to their comfort level. Innovation or experimentation in religious practices are anathema to them. Religious conservatives are quite prone to being intolerant of diversity and alternative views of reality. Hence, they are quite prone to bigotry.
Religious liberals are those who are cognizant of the intellectual weaknesses of their religion and who are open to novelty in a religion that is evolving in tune with their society and culture. These people are not inclined to wanting to superimpose their beliefs on those of a different persuasion. Religious liberals are disposed to see their religious experience as a journey of discovery, innovation and evolutionary change. Religious liberals are receptive to, and easily accommodate, new knowledge. Religious liberals have a higher level of intellectualism and educational attainment than religious conservatives. The failings of religious liberals is that they provide cover for the religious conservatives and are not critical of the un-evolved and less sophisticated positions of the conservatives. Hence the religious community is riddled through and through with cognitive dissonance that morphs into hypocrisy.
The religious liberal/conservative dichotomy will, in all likelihood, persist for as long as people choose to sort themselves into the two different camps of believers. The rational alternative to religious liberalism or conservatism is for those of both persuasions to come to grips with the realities of the 21st Century, and adopt a world view that is devoid of superstition and magical thinking. In so doing, the inordinately dangerous element of religious thought that is an intellectual malignancy in our modern culture can be abandoned as an ancient and archaic meme that has outlived any alleged usefulness. This newer, more modern, world view is called Secular, Scientific, Ethical Humanism.
(623 words)
All religious people place credibility in ideas that have neither evidentiary support nor empirical backing of any kind. For the most part these religious people believe propositions or ideas that fit into a preconceived frame of reference or world view in which they find comfort. The fact that these seriously flawed ideas or propositions are irrational or illogical, or deny and defy the known laws of the universe, are apparently irrelevant to the believers. These people can find comfort in convenient, but irrational falsehoods. When people can find comfort in falsehoods they are dangerous, especially when they are in a policy making position, e.g. legislators at any level.
Since religious faith is predicated on subjective speculation and unsupported conjecture which allows for unconstrained interpretation we can expect serious intellectual errors to follow. This has been the history of Western Civilization for millennia. More blood has been shed, and more people have died, as a consequence of these religiously inspired intellectual errors than for all other causes combined. When people continue to make the same religiously inspired errors while expecting different outcomes we are inclined to label such behavior as stupidity. While Europe has seen millions of people who have abandoned their allegiance to organized religion--especially Christianity--Americans still overwhelmingly continue to subscribe to religions that increasingly represent a retreat into the thinking of the tenth century of the Common Era. While the numbers of people in America who disavow any alliance with an organized religion is growing significantly, they are still a substantial minority.
Among religious believers, there is a huge spectrum of commitment to the dogma and doctrine of any sect. Some people are rigidly bound to a literalist/fundamentalist interpretation of their religion, and others are very flexible and open to various interpretations.
Those who are religiously conservative are those who cling hysterically to the status quo--they are frightened by change--they are not receptive to new knowledge. Ordered evolutionary change or alternative religious views so necessary in any modern culture are viewed as a threat to their comfort level. Innovation or experimentation in religious practices are anathema to them. Religious conservatives are quite prone to being intolerant of diversity and alternative views of reality. Hence, they are quite prone to bigotry.
Religious liberals are those who are cognizant of the intellectual weaknesses of their religion and who are open to novelty in a religion that is evolving in tune with their society and culture. These people are not inclined to wanting to superimpose their beliefs on those of a different persuasion. Religious liberals are disposed to see their religious experience as a journey of discovery, innovation and evolutionary change. Religious liberals are receptive to, and easily accommodate, new knowledge. Religious liberals have a higher level of intellectualism and educational attainment than religious conservatives. The failings of religious liberals is that they provide cover for the religious conservatives and are not critical of the un-evolved and less sophisticated positions of the conservatives. Hence the religious community is riddled through and through with cognitive dissonance that morphs into hypocrisy.
The religious liberal/conservative dichotomy will, in all likelihood, persist for as long as people choose to sort themselves into the two different camps of believers. The rational alternative to religious liberalism or conservatism is for those of both persuasions to come to grips with the realities of the 21st Century, and adopt a world view that is devoid of superstition and magical thinking. In so doing, the inordinately dangerous element of religious thought that is an intellectual malignancy in our modern culture can be abandoned as an ancient and archaic meme that has outlived any alleged usefulness. This newer, more modern, world view is called Secular, Scientific, Ethical Humanism.
(623 words)
Rodney
Sheffer
No comments:
Post a Comment